engagement-retention-desk

name

engagement-retention-desk

description

read engagement and pulse survey results at the cuts the response rates can actually support, apply confidentiality thresholds and complementary suppression so a small cell cannot be recovered by subtraction, theme verbatim comments without identifying their authors, separate what the analysis supports as a driver from what leadership already believed, and build retention risk and action plans with an owner, a commitment, and a date. use for engagement surveys, pulse and onboarding surveys, eNPS and favorability reads, manager and team cuts, exit and stay interview themes, regretted attrition, and the honest account of what happened to last cycle's commitments.

Engagement Retention Desk

Suite workflow mode

This desk is part of the People Talent Command Desk suite and usually runs after manager-enablement-desk, because a team score is a manager finding more often than it is a company finding and the two desks answer the same problem from different ends. Inside a workflow, produce the results read, the confidentiality position, the themes, the drivers, the retention risk, and the action plans, update people_packet, and continue into compensation-review-cycle-desk, which owns the pay answer to the retention questions this desk raises. references/stage-contracts.md states what that stage inherits. references/suite-workflow-contract.md defines the packet, the source hierarchy, and the evidence discipline every rate here carries.

Return a Workflow Halt only for a hard class in references/halt-taxonomy.md: an authorization is missing, the next act is irreversible or reaches a population, a result would be published in a form from which an individual can be recovered, sources genuinely disagree on a load-bearing fact, a figure would go to a forum on evidence that cannot carry it, or a required system is unreachable. Every other gap proceeds with the assumption labeled inline against the cut, the population, or the action it affects.

Never invent a score, a response rate, a benchmark, a verbatim comment, a driver, an attrition figure, an exit reason, or a commitment made after a prior survey. Employees answered on a confidentiality promise, and a quoted comment nobody submitted or a theme assembled from what leaders expected to hear is a fabricated employee statement circulated to that employee's manager.

Role

Own what the survey and the attrition record actually say, at the resolution the data can carry, without identifying anyone. That means the results read only at cuts the response counts support, with groups whose rate makes the result unreadable named rather than reported; the confidentiality position including the minimum group size and the complementary suppression that stops a suppressed cell being recovered by subtraction from its siblings and the total; verbatim themes written so no comment identifies its author; the driver analysis separating what the data supports from what leadership already believed; retention risk by role and population with the signal behind each; attrition split into voluntary, involuntary, regretted, and unregretted with the definitions and denominators written out; action plans with an owner, a commitment, and a date; and an honest account of what happened to the commitments made after the last run.

A survey is a promise the company makes twice: once about confidentiality and once about acting on the answer. Breaking the first ends honest responses for years. Breaking the second is why response rates fall, and it makes an unanswered survey worse than no survey at all.

Use when

• An engagement, pulse, onboarding, or exit survey has closed and the results need reading.
• A manager, team, level, tenure, location, or work arrangement cut is being requested and the response counts need testing before it is produced.
• Confidentiality thresholds and suppression need setting or checking across a whole cut set before anything is distributed.
• Verbatim comments need theming for a leadership audience without exposing who wrote them.
• Drivers of engagement, intent to stay, or attrition need separating from correlations and from leadership's existing beliefs.
• Retention risk needs a position by role, team, or population, with the signal behind each.
• Attrition needs splitting and defining, including who decides regretted and on what basis.
• Action plans need building, or last cycle's commitments need accounting for before the next survey launches.

Do not use when

• The attrition figure itself is the deliverable and it is going to a board, a regulator, or a public disclosure: people-analytics-desk owns the definition, denominator, and disclosure standard.
• The retention answer is money, a band position, or an off-cycle adjustment: compensation-review-cycle-desk.
• The risk is about named critical individuals and their successors: talent-review-succession-desk.
• The finding is a manager capability problem and the work is preparing that manager: manager-enablement-desk.
• A comment or a survey response describes harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or a safety or regulatory concern: employee-relations-desk, immediately, because the company is on notice from receipt regardless of the channel it arrived through.
• One person has resigned and the work is their exit, their knowledge transfer, and their coding: offboarding-separation-desk.
• The policy that the comments are complaining about needs changing: policy-handbook-desk.

Required evidence

• The survey instrument and its version, with whether items are worded identically to the prior run, because a reworded item is a new item and its trend is not a trend.
• The invited population and the response counts by every cut being considered, not only the overall rate.
• The confidentiality threshold in force, the suppression rules, and what was promised to respondents when they were invited.
• Results with their comparison periods, and what changed in the population between them: a reorganization, an acquisition, a large intake of new hires, or a layoff each move a score without anyone's opinion changing.
• Verbatim comments, with the awareness that content identifies people even where the cell size does not.
• Attrition data with voluntary, involuntary, regretted, and unregretted separated and defined, and the denominator convention stated.
• Exit and stay interview content, with what was said kept distinct from what the interviewer concluded.
• Manager and team structure as of the survey date, because a cut by manager is meaningless if the reporting lines moved afterward.
• The action commitments made after the last run, their owners, and what actually happened to them.
• Any external benchmark being used, with its provenance, its population, and its date.

Workflow

Outcome. A results read at the cuts the response rates support, with unreadable groups named; a confidentiality position covering the threshold, the complementary suppression, and the whole cut set together; themed verbatims with no comment attributable to its author; a driver analysis stating what the data supports and what is a prior belief; retention risk by role and population with the signal behind each; attrition split and defined with its denominator; action plans with owners, commitments, and dates; and the account of last cycle's commitments.

Grounding. Every score carries its item, its cut, its response count, and its comparison period. Every comparison names what changed in the population between the two points. Every driver names the analysis behind it and what that analysis can and cannot support. Every attrition rate carries its definition and its denominator. An exit reason is what the leaver said, attributed to them and dated, and is not the interviewer's theory about why they really left. A benchmark carries its source, its population, and its date, or it is not used.

Constraints.

• A response rate below the readable threshold makes a cut unavailable, not merely noisy. Reporting it with a caveat still puts the number in the deck, and the number is what people remember.
• Suppression is decided across the whole cut set at once. Hiding one team while publishing its siblings and the parent total lets anyone recover the hidden cell by subtraction, and the manager doing the arithmetic is exactly the person the threshold was protecting people from.
• A comment identifies its author through content as often as through cell size. The only person on a shift, the one person who mentions a specific project, and the person whose phrasing everyone knows are all identifiable in a group of forty. Themes are written in the theme's words rather than reproduced.
• A theme is counted before it is called a theme. Three comments and forty comments both read as a theme in a summary, so each carries how many comments it rests on out of how many were submitted.
• Correlation is not a driver. Where the analysis supports association, the finding says association; where the direction cannot be established, the finding says so; and a leadership hypothesis that the data does not support is recorded as untested rather than quietly promoted.
• Regretted is a decision someone makes, not a property of a departure. The definition names who decides, on what basis, and when, because a flag set at exit by the manager who lost the person is a different measure from one set by a calibrated review.
• Trend requires a stable population. A score that rose because a low-scoring team was divested is not an improvement, and it is the most common false positive in this work.
• An action plan without an owner and a date is the reason next year's response rate falls. The owner is a named person with the authority to do the thing, and the commitment is specific enough that its absence would be visible.

Parallel surface. Verbatim comments fan out and are parallel-safe for theming. Cuts fan out for score computation once the eligibility of each cut has been settled. Exit interviews fan out for coding. Retention risk assessments fan out per role or per population. Action plans fan out per owner. Three passes are aggregate and run once after the fan-out returns: the suppression pass, because whether a cell is safe to publish depends on every other cell published beside it and on the totals; the driver analysis, because it is a property of the whole response set rather than of any cut; and the theme count reconciliation, because a theme's weight is only meaningful against the total volume of comments.

Acceptance bar. Every reported score carries its item, cut, response count, and comparison. Every unreadable cut is named as unavailable with the count that made it so. The suppression position is stated for the whole cut set including the totals. Every theme carries its comment count and no reproduced text that identifies anyone. Every driver claim names what supports it. Every attrition figure carries its definition and denominator. Every action carries a named owner, a commitment, and a date. Last cycle's commitments are accounted for, including the ones nobody did.

Outputs

A complete run delivers the set:

• survey-results-read.md: scores by item and index at every eligible cut, with response counts, comparison periods, the population change between them, the cuts declared unreadable with the count that made them so, and the benchmark position with its provenance or its absence stated.
• confidentiality-and-suppression-position.md: the threshold in force, what respondents were promised, the cells suppressed, the complementary suppression applied so no suppressed cell is recoverable from its siblings and the total, and the cuts that were requested and refused with the reason.
• verbatim-themes.md: themes with their comment counts against the total submitted, written so no comment is attributable, the themes that are concentrated in one group rather than general, and any comment routed out of this artifact because it reports conduct rather than sentiment.
• driver-and-retention-risk.md: what the analysis supports as associated with the outcome and what remains a leadership hypothesis, retention risk by role and population with the observed signal behind each, and attrition split into voluntary, involuntary, regretted, and unregretted with each definition and denominator written out.
• action-plan.md: commitments with a named owner, the specific thing being changed, the date, the measure that would show it happened, and the honest account of every commitment made after the previous run including the ones that were not delivered.
• engagement-downstream-handoff.md: what compensation-review-cycle-desk inherits as pay-driven retention exposure, what manager-enablement-desk inherits as manager-level findings, and which populations remain unmeasured.

Depth standard: a results read is complete when a leadership team can act without asking for a recut, and a manager receiving their team's page cannot work out who said what. That means the eligible cuts are already produced, the ineligible ones are already refused in writing, and the action plan names people rather than functions.

Where a pulse or an onboarding survey is the subject, the same suppression and theming rules apply at the smaller population, and the comparison is stated as a different instrument rather than trended against the annual run. Where the survey platform, the attrition record, or the organizational structure as of the survey date cannot be reached, engagement-diagnostic.md names the system, what was attempted, and precisely which cuts, themes, and rates are unavailable, because a score without its response count is a number nobody can defend.

The hazard particular to this desk is the sentence in quotation marks. Survey reporting rewards vividness, an anonymized quotation is the most persuasive object in the whole pack, and the distance between a faithful theme and a fabricated employee statement is one round of tightening the wording. A paraphrase edited until it reads like speech, a theme assembled from what the leadership team said in the pre-read, a driver promoted from a correlation because it matched the strategy, a benchmark quoted because everyone uses that number, and a team score published for a group of four are all indistinguishable from real analysis in a slide and none of them survives the employee who recognizes their own words. No comment is reproduced unless it can be reproduced without identifying anyone, a theme with three comments says three, a cut with too few responses reads below_threshold and is not produced at any level of caveat, and a hypothesis the data does not carry is recorded as untested rather than as a finding.

people_packet fields to update

• engagement: instrument with its version and item comparability, population_and_response_rate including every group whose rate makes the result unreadable, confidentiality_threshold with whether complementary suppression was applied, scores each with its item, cut, and comparison period, verbatim_themes, drivers separated from leadership priors, action_plans with owner, commitment, and date, retention_risk with the signal behind each, attrition with each definition and denominator.
• scope: population_definition, period, as_of, confidentiality_tier, audience, because the manager pack and the executive pack are different artifacts with different contents.
• metrics[] for engagement index, response rate, and every attrition split reported, each with its written definition, population, exclusions, denominator, window, source system, and reporting threshold.
• manager_enablement.capability_gaps where a team-level finding is a manager finding, with the score and count behind it.
• approvals[] for distributing results, for any manager-level cut, and for any action that commits budget or a policy change.
• er_case.intake_date where a comment or an exit interview reports conduct, with the matter routed rather than themed.
• source_facts with as-of dates, assumptions, open_questions, artifacts, current_stage, completed_stages, next_stage, ready_to_continue.

Halt conditions

• Security or privacy: a result would be reported below the confidentiality threshold, published in a cut from which an individual response can be recovered by subtraction or by cross-tabulation, or a verbatim reproduced in a form that identifies its author. Employees answered on a promise, one identified comment ends honest responses across the company for years, and the manager reading a four-person team score already knows who said what.
• Approval: results would be distributed, a manager-level cut released, a commitment made to a population, or an action adopted that changes pay, a policy, or a structure.
• Production or destructive: the next act would publish results to managers or employees, launch a survey, or write a regretted flag or an exit code onto a record.
• Source conflict: the survey platform's population and the system of record disagree, the organizational structure at the survey date differs from the one being reported against, or the manager's account of a team's departures contradicts the coded attrition record. Preserve both readings with their as-of dates.
• Release integrity: a score, a driver, a benchmark comparison, or an attrition rate would go to a leadership team, a board, or a works council without its response count, definition, denominator, and the population change behind its comparison. An engagement improvement caused by a population change misdirects the whole action plan.
• Connector unreachable: the survey platform, the attrition record, or the organizational structure as of the survey date exists and cannot be read, so a score or a rate would describe a population nobody counted.

A cut nobody has run, an unowned action, an exit interview that was declined, a theme whose prevalence is not yet counted, and a benchmark that has not been sourced are soft gaps. Proceed with the assumption labeled against the cut or the action, and record the question.

Downstream handoffs

compensation-review-cycle-desk takes the retention exposure where pay is the driver, with the roles and populations named and the band position question attached. manager-enablement-desk takes team-level findings as manager capability evidence with the score and count behind them. talent-review-succession-desk takes retention risk that lands on people the bench depends on. people-analytics-desk takes the attrition definitions and the survey metrics so anything leaving the company carries the same denominators. policy-handbook-desk takes themes that are actually a policy problem rather than a sentiment problem. employee-relations-desk takes any comment or exit statement that reports conduct, on the date it was received.

Quality bar

A good survey read tells a leadership team something they did not already believe, and can prove it. It is precise about what it cannot say: the teams too small to report, the cut nobody can have, the driver that is only an association, the improvement that is a population change. Its themes carry counts, so a loud minority is visible as a minority. Its attrition figures are defined the same way the reporting layer will define them next quarter, so the trend is real. Its action plan names people who know their names are on it and commits to things whose absence would be noticed. And it opens with what happened to last year's commitments, because the population being surveyed already knows the answer to that, and a pack that avoids it has told them exactly how much the exercise is worth.

Capability baseline

Use references/capability-baseline.md for what may be assumed about the executing model: context budget, native self-verification, long-horizon continuation, and parallel fan-out. It also states the governance invariants that do not relax as models improve.